Baptism positions in the Reformed forum

[Cajun Huguenot]

If you are interested you might find theses posts useful:
Circumcision and Baptism compared
Some thoughts on baptism and covenant
Israel/Church: One people of God
Baptism and the Early Church
Baptismal Regeneration?
Some thoughts on Covenant
Covenant Privilege

In the New Testament we see a number of important expansions of the OC promises.

In Romans we see that the land promise to Abraham is expanded to include the whole world.
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. (Romans 4:13)

Females are clearly to recieve the New Covenant sign. Because we have examples of women being baptised. BTW: Why do women take communion. there is no example in the New Testamentof women ever recieving communion. Our examples are of men only. So don't rule things out (i.e. paedobaptism) because there is no specific New Testament example.

In Christ,
Kenith

I am for believer's baptism by immersion. The Bible says to believe and be baptized. One more thing, if baptism=circumcision, then why baptize the girls? And don't say that it is because we are in the new covenant.

BTW I am not trying to be offensive. I really am curious. Besides, I count you PCA, OPC, etc. people good brethren and I wouldn't want to offend on this minor issue when we agree on so much.

 

[akolouthein]

I voted paedo and any methods above. I was baptised in the Free Will Baptist church and was "dunked" . But I don't think that makes me any more Baptised than a baby who was sprinkled. I think its all God's doing anyway, He Baptises us and saves us. Most churchs that perform paedobaptism require a statement of faith and Baptism from children before they can take communion.

 

[StAnselm]

One more thing, if baptism=circumcision, then why baptize the girls? And don't say that it is because we are in the new covenant.

Sorry - why can't I say that?

Surely the new covenant is more gracious - in Christ there is neither male nor female, presumably in way that was not the case in the Old Testament.

And because it's wider and more gracious - it's very hard to see why babies would be excluded.

 

[edie19]

I am for believer's baptism by immersion. The Bible says to believe and be baptized. . . . . Besides, I count you PCA, OPC, etc. people good brethren and I wouldn't want to offend on this minor issue when we agree on so much.

You make a good point here. I'm ready to take some arrows for what I'm saying - but I think in the greater scheme of things infant vs believer baptism, sprinkling vs immersion is one of the more minor doctrinal issues. I'm a lot more concerned with things such as the Solas, works righteousness, and/or some of the heresies that are being preached.

Also, while it is certainly off topic - I must say I'm truly impressed by the knowledge and understanding some very young folks on the forum are displaying.

edie

 

[calmcoolandelected]

Does anyone have good book recommendations on the subject - perhaps books that compare and contrast both?

I have two booklets, one is called, "Baptism" by Francis Schaeffer and the other is "What Christian Parents Should Know About Infant Baptism" by John P. Sartelle.

In Schaeffer's booklet, he discusses the mode of baptism (i.e., sprinkling vs. immersion) as well as paedobaptism.

CC&E

 

[A New Dawn]

credobaptism and immersion (only)

I grew up in the RLDS church in which all were baptized by immersion at 8 years old, unless converted as an adult. But since leaving that church and becoming more familiar with the scriptures, I believe that baptism on conversion is correct and by immersion because that is what Christ modeled.

I put the only in parenthenses because if there is a physical problem that prevents immersion, it is better to be baptized another way than to not be baptized.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

My husband and I haven't had children yet, and I feel we will need to do some more study of this issue before we decide what we feel is best. I don't believe this is a right/wrong issue. I see solid scriptural support for both positions.

Does anyone have good book recommendations on the subject - perhaps books that compare and contrast both?

I can recommend these books:
Children of the Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism by Randy Booth
The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism Greg Strawbridge

I can recommend these articles:
Infant Baptism: A Duty of God’s People by Kenneth Gentry
The Mode of Christian Baptism by Kenneth Gentry
Defense of Infant Baptism by R. Scott Clark
Covenant Infant Baptism by Gregg Strawbridge
Infant Baptism: Does the Bible Teach it? by Gregg Strawbridge
Baptism: Its Meaning & Purpose by Greg L. Bahnsen
Cross Examination: Infant Baptism by Greg L. Bahnsen
A Journey Home by Randy Booth

You can find a lot more from both sides at Monergism

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[akolouthein]

I can recommend these books:
Children of the Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism by Randy Booth
The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism Greg Strawbridge

I can recommend these articles:
Infant Baptism: A Duty of God’s People by Kenneth Gentry
The Mode of Christian Baptism by Kenneth Gentry
Defense of Infant Baptism by R. Scott Clark
Covenant Infant Baptism by Gregg Strawbridge
Infant Baptism: Does the Bible Teach it? by Gregg Strawbridge
Baptism: Its Meaning & Purpose by Greg L. Bahnsen
Cross Examination: Infant Baptism by Greg L. Bahnsen
A Journey Home by Randy Booth

You can find a lot more from both sides at Monergism

In Christ,
Kenith

Woot Cajun strikes again with super references! Thanks mate

 

[Defcon]

Sorry - why can't I say that?

Surely the new covenant is more gracious - in Christ there is neither male nor female, presumably in way that was not the case in the Old Testament.

And because it's wider and more gracious - it's very hard to see why babies would be excluded.

Um, the trouble with saying that baptism is more 'gracious' (and therefore can be given to male and female) appears to fall under dispensational theology; not covenental theology. Covenental theology states that baptism is the replacement of circumcision and that fact makes the question concerning female infant baptism potent. I'm with others in the forum with the agreement that this is a minor issue - but I think I needed to address this so that this argument is not overlooked.

 

[StAnselm]

Um, the trouble with saying that baptism is more 'gracious' (and therefore can be given to male and female) appears to fall under dispensational theology; not covenental theology.

Hey wait a minute - you can't cry "dispensational theology" as soon as someone mentions differences between Old and New Covenants. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female - doesn't this imply something has changed?

 

[calmcoolandelected]

Greg Strawbridge

I like Strawbridge; I was able to talk to him at length this spring as I was conducting phone interviews for a pastoral candidate. Neat guy!

CC&E

 

[Defcon]

Hey wait a minute - you can't cry "dispensational theology" as soon as someone mentions differences between Old and New Covenants. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female - doesn't this imply something has changed?

Then infant baptism seems rather gray to me. It appears the strength of the infant baptism is its close relation to the act of circumcision in the Old Testament. If you are willing to accept that there are differences between Old and New Covenants - then that makes the credobaptism case even stronger.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I wonder how many paedobaptism and immersion responses we will get. Is that ever done to an infant?

I have Roman Catholic relatives and they do full immersion on infants - as young as they can get them!

In our Anglican church, we sprinkle infants and do full immersion for adults.

 

[reformedfan]

Then infant baptism seems rather gray to me. It appears the strength of the infant baptism is its close relation to the act of circumcision in the Old Testament. If you are willing to accept that there are differences between Old and New Covenants - then that makes the credobaptism case even stronger.

Ignoring the Old Testament strengthens a case for any doctrinal position? That doesn't send red flags flying?

 

[Defcon]

Ignoring the Old Testament strengthens a case for any doctrinal position? That doesn't send red flags flying?

I never said ignore the Old Testament. The point was being made that the paedobaptism argument was for baptism replacing circumcision in the OT. The comment was made as to why female infants are baptized since they weren't/can't be circumcised. The reply was that we are now under the New Covenant - which is heading down the path of a logical fallacy.
1) Baptism is not a New Covenant idea only for believers, it has been around since the Old Covenant.
2) Baptism is the replacement of circumcision even in the Old Testament
3) We baptize female infants because of we are under the New Covenant

The very thing that this argument denies - (something new in the New Covenant) it then uses as a basis for its action toward female infants. Its not earth shattering, but an odd line of reasoning nonetheless.

 

[StAnselm]

No, I don't think it's inconsistent. I do believe NT baptism replaces circumcision - rather than representing a continuation of OT baptisms, which were basically priestly washings.

Yet it's circumcision that has been transformed, and in a sense glorified. For one thing, it is unbloody (as is the Lord's Supper) since there is no need for any more blood to be shed. But another point is that it's given to gentiles as well. And so baptising women fits in with this perfectly.

 

[StAnselm]

Of course, the issue is not just with female infants, but females in general.

 

[Defcon]

This is an issue we'll just have to disagree on.....

 

[AngylBelle]

*bump*

I just wanted to let you all know that I *borrowed* EnglishPuritan's poll on this and placed it in General Theology as well. I thought it would be good to get perspectives on this issue outside of the reformed church area...especially since I have never fully understood the anti-padeobaptism position.

 

[Knight]

Believers Baptism .
why?
Because I have never been convinced of Baptising infants.

I have read books by both sides and I believe that baptism and Communion are for the repentant.

Ditto...

I believe that imersion is more correct but I'm not fanatical about it.